3 ms·
The fact is material and pertinent. It is absolutely objectively pertinent to whether the WSJ journal is earnestly acting in good faith with a long history of a
by eyelovewe 5y ago
The fact is material and pertinent. It is absolutely objectively pertinent to whether the WSJ journal is earnestly acting in good faith with a long history of anti-electrification articles. Whether you AGREE with my assessment that, no they are not a good faith actor, is perhaps an open question. My flagged comment below expressed my OPINION that the WSJ is a bad faith actor in this topic, arguably Rupert Murdoch is responsible for much of climate change denialism. However, flagging a civilly expressed opinion that has a pertinent bearing on the thread is abusing flagging for the sake of suppressing criticism.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> The fact is material and pertinent. The comment would potentially be much more valuable if, besides the bare fact, it made the case for how/why that fact should be given weight in the context of the instant article. (I can't judge whether it would or not without the content of that argument, but it at least has potential.) > Whether you AGREE with my assessment that, no they are not a good faith actor, is perhaps an open question. Whether or not I agree with that is tangential to whether I would agree that pointing one fact forming (I hope only part of) the basis of that assessment with no further elaboration of its relevance to the immediate subject of discussion is a contribution up to the minimum quality standards expected on HN.